BIBLICAL STUDIES. – www.covenantchurches.org

BIBLICAL STUDIES.

A SHORT SUMMARY OF THE EVENTS IN THE GOSPELS, IN AS CORRECT A CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER AS POSSIBLE.

John the Baptist.
Baptism of Christ.
Temptation of Christ.
Christ’s return to Galilee and arrival at Capernaum.
Cure of Peter’s mother in law.
Cure of a leper.
Cure of a man with palsy.
Call of Matthew-Levi.
Christ goes through the corn fields with his disciples.
Cure of the withered hand.
Sermon on the Mount.
Christ accused of casting out demons with aid of Beelzebub.
Christ’s mother and brethren attempt to see him.
Parable of the sower.
Christ crosses the sea and stills a storm.
Events in the country of the Gadarenes.
Jairus’s daughter restored to life.
Christ sends out the twelve apostles.
The report of Jesus reaches the court of Herod.
Five thousand men miraculously fed.
The apostles understand and acknowledge Christ as Messiah.
Christ is transfigured on the Mount.
Christ cures the demoniac that the Apostles could not cure.
Christ foretells his atoning death.
Dispute among the Apostles as to who should be greatest.
Christ blessed little children brought to him.
Christ again foretells his atoning death.
Blind man at Jericho restored to sight.
Christ’s public entry into Jerusalem.
Christ expels buyers and sellers from the Temple.
Christ rebuked by the Chief Priests for teaching in the Temple.
Teaching on paying tribute to Caesar, and on the nature of the resurrection.
Discourse with a Pharisee on David’s calling the Messiah his lord.
Pharisees censured by Christ.
Christ foretells the destruction of Jerusalem and day of Judgment.
Events leading to Christ’s suffering.
Judas takes the bribe to betray Christ. The Passover meal.
Christ goes to the Mount of Olives.
Christ is arrested.
Peter’s denial of Christ.
The crucifixion and death of Christ.
The resurrection of Christ.
Post-resurrection appearances of Christ.
Christ ascends into heaven, promising to return.

DEACONS IN ACTS CHAPTER SIX.

Much has been made of the fact that most of the names of the men appointed as Deacons in Acts Chapter six are Greek, suggesting that these were Hellenists chosen deliberately to remove claimed prejudice against the Greeks in the distribution. This is an assumption. Most New Testament characters (indeed most people in that society at that time) had double names, Aramaic and Greek. Thus Simon-Peter, Saul-Paul and many others. Acts was penned by a Greek speaker and writer, Luke the physician, who would naturally think first of the Greek version of people’s names. This provides no evidence that the men chosen were not in fact Jews. This factor is clearly recorded in ancient Rome itself. Early records concerning Rome’s Jewish population show that the recorded names are overwhelmingly Greek or Latin, with only a few being recognisably Aramaic or Hebrew.* If this evidence had concerned the church at Rome the almost exclusively Greek and Latin names would have led to the erroneous conclusion that the Roman church was almost totally gentile.
No arguments concerning the actual Jewish-Hellenist makeup of the Jerusalem church can be derived from the name in Acts Chapter six.

* Harry Joshua Leon The Names of Jews in Ancient Rome, 1988.

ACTS 12:17-19: WHO WENT TO CAESAREA, AND THE IMPORTANCE OF THAT CITY.

Peter, miraculously released from his Jerusalem prison went to the house of Miriam to report his safety, and then he departed, and sought another place (Acts 12:17). We then have an aside about Herod, who examined the keepers and condemned them to death. Following this we read that he went down from Judea to Ceasarea, and was abiding there (v. 19). Because of this short aside or parenthesis almost all readers and commentators have assumed that Herod was the he who went down to Caesarea, and that the punishment that fell on him (vs. 21-23) occurred there. Herod’s displeasure, however, was with the citizens of Tyre and Sidon, so how could he sit on a throne and make an oration to those citizens if he was at Caesarea and not at either Tyre or Sidon? And why was Peter’s other place not specified? Where did Peter go? What we have here is almost certainly a mis-reading in English, due to the nature and structure of the Greek text. If we read it as follows the difficulty vanishes: And he (Peter) departed, and sought another place. Now as soon as it was day there was confusion among the soldiers over what had become of Peter, and when Herod had him sought for and he could not be found he had the keepers interrogated and commanded them to be put to death, but he had gone down from Judea to Caesarea, and was abiding there.
This is agreeable with the Greek, and makes a lot of sense. Peter, not Herod, was the one who went to Caesarea in Acts Chapter Twelve.
Ceasarea Maritima holds a unique and important (although mostly neglected) place in the New Testament. As the Roman administrative capital of the Province of Judea, and very much a new rather than ancient town, it had virtually no Jewish background and history, was fully under Roman jurisdiction and functioned almost as a detached part of Rome itself. Jewish law held no sway there. On reaching Caesarea Peter was safe from Herod’s sentence, being on Roman rather than on Jewish territory, and yet he was still strategically placed within Judea, a short distance from Jerusalem and the church there. This was the ideal other place that Peter fled to. On the other hand there is no way in which Herod could set up a royal throne, hold court with a retinue including Blastus the king’s chamberlain (v. 20), and receive a deputation from Tyre and Sidon, all on Roman territory. The deputation, and its results, can only have taken place in Herod’s capital, Jerusalem. Thus it was Peter, and not Herod, who went down from Jerusalem to Caesarea Maritima.
When the situation changed, on the death of Herod, Peter was free to return safely, although we do not know how long he remained in Caesarea before feeling it was safe to do so. Certainly he was back playing a key role in the Jerusalem church at the time of the Jerusalem Council of Acts Chapter 15.
This sojourn of Peter in a mini Rome on the seacoast can, in fact, explain many things that have puzzled Bible readers and commentators. There is acknowledged a strong and pervasive Roman connection in things concerning Peter: so much so that it gave rise to the myth that Peter actually lived in Rome (and was the first pope!), a quite unbelievable claim for a Galilean fisherman who was emphatically an Apostle to the Jews, not gentiles. The Gospel of Mark is closely associated with Peter, who could call Mark his son (1. Peter 5: 13), so much so that it has been said that it could well be called Peter’s Gospel^1, yet it is also clearly adapted to a gentile, Roman, and even Latin speaking readership. A residence at Caesarea, that ‘little Rome beyond the sea’ accounts for this entry into things Roman in Peter’s thinking and in Mark’s gospel, without his leaving his home territory of Judea. Caesarea thus served as a unique interface between the Jewish and Roman worlds. In the first century A.D. there were an estimated ten-thousand Jews resident in Caesarea. These would be frequently travelling into and out of the city, backward and forward into Jewish Palestine. Commercial firms would have depots and branches In Jerusalem and Caesarea. These Jewish residents of Caesarea were under Roman law in that city. They would quickly become aware of the spread of the Gospel. Those intrigued or interested would quickly spread the message back into Jewry: those hostile were powerless to oppose or persecute it on Roman soil. Further, the substantial Roman military garrison at Caesarea would be subject to constant movement as officers and men were posted away to, or drafted in from, other parts of the Empire. We know of Cornelius and others who were part of a church at Caesarea: military movements would spread the message of the Gospel out into the wider Roman Empire, and thus certainly in time to Rome itself. This factor may well explain the first origin of the Church at Rome, which clearly existed before any Pauline or other apostolic mission.
A Jewish gospel tailored for a Roman audience at Caesarea would also be easily transported across the Roman trade routes and to Rome itself. Caesarea is probably the place of writing of Mark’s Gospel, with it Roman and Latin contents. In the same way when Paul, a Jewish Apostle who had laboured among the gentiles and who was hated by the Jewish religious leadership, wanted to write to the Christians in Judea, as he was also a Roman citizen, how better to do so than via Caesarea, Roman soil on Jewish territory? We might suggest that it was through Caesarea that Paul introduced his Epistle to the Hebrews into Palestine, when it might well have been intercepted is forwarded any other way, also discretely withholding his name, although on reading the contents make his identity quite plain.
An interesting sidelight on this relationship might be provided by the fragments of early Christian writings identified in Cave 7 at Wadi Qumran. A storage jar that had contained scrolls has stamped in its neck twice the Hebrew letters rwm. It has been plausibly suggested that this was an attempt to write Rome in Hebrew, and so identify the origin of the scrolls contained in it. At this date (sometime before 70 A.D.) the more prosperous church at Rome, with better facilities, was apparently copying and supplying the New Testament writings, which would then almost certainly have entered Palestine via Caesarea Maritima, and thence to the library of works that were stored (for safety?) in the Qumran caves during the Roman-Jewish war².
We conclude then that a difficulty in interpreting the Greek has caused a seeming difficulty. Peter fled to the safety of Caesarea, and Caesarea, because of its unique dual nature, simultaneously both Jew and gentile, was to play an important part in the spread of the gospel into the wider world. Although many wonderful breakthroughs into the Gentile world were made by the Apostolic missions and thriving churches founded, yet the centres of the expansion of early Christian were successively: Jerusalem (the Jewish Church phase), Caesarea Maritima (Jewish and Gentile adjustment phase), then Rome (Gentile majority phase.)

Papias (flourished c.110), Justin (died 164), Irenaeus (flourished 180), and Origen all speak of Mark’s gospel as having been dictated or sanctioned by Peter. Joseph Angus, Bible Handbook, 1860, p. 65. An early apocryphal work, the Acta Petri (c. 180 A.D.) has Peter entering a synagogue where part of the Gospel of Mark was read. Asked to speak to the people he refers to the passage as scripsimus (what we have written) and then expands the narrative with eye witness details. Clearly at that date the Gospel of Mark was regarded as essentially Peter’s.
See Carsten P. Thiede, The Earliest Gospel Manuscript?, 1992, p. 54.

ACTS CHAPTER 16 :13-15 – PROOF OF INFANT BAPTISM.

Immersionists frequently claim that there is no specific record of infant baptism in the New Testament. In fact there are very clear examples there. The question really is: ‘How specific do you want it to be?’ As covenant infants had always been included in the Old Testament church (and male infants formally admitted as such by circumcision) and as the New Testament church began with converted Jews the inclusion of covenant infants was taken for granted, and as baptism clearly fulfilled and took the place of circumcision covenant infant baptism was also taken for granted. It is illogical to demand specific, detailed examples of what was, in fact a given, a norm in the church. That the on-going, age-old, practice (in its New Testament manifestation) had suddenly and inexplicably ceased is what the Immersionist would need to prove- and of course cannot do so.
However, understanding that covenant infant baptism was the unquestioned practice from the Apostolic days we cannot expect it to be highlighted (any more than unquestioned on-going circumcision of male babies in the Old Testament- rarely specifically mentioned but essential) but as a nor’ or given would be referenced incidentally, as other circumstances show that this certainly was the case. Looking then at such secondary evidence almost incidentally proving the unquestioned practice, an abundance of facts emerge. One of the most certain is given (for those who have eyes to see and ears to hear) in Acts Chapter Sixteen.
The sequence is this:
1) At Philippi Paul and Silas visit, on the Sabbath day, by the riverside a place of prayer (i.e Jewish Proseuche.) 2. Here they met Lydia, to whom Paul preached Christ as Messiah and Saviour. 3.She professed belief, and was immediately baptised 4. AFTER THIS she and her household were immediately baptised. It was only after this that she pleaded with us, saying, If you have judged me to be faithful to the Lord come into my house and abide there. (Acts 16: 13-15).
How many read this without at all considering what is included in the narrative? She was baptised immediately, on plausible profession of faith, but her household are baptised right then, along with her. Attending her house only came later, on pressing invitation. There was no time to visit and preach or teach anyone there, and no collecting of a change of clothes or of towels, or anything necessary had baptism been an immersion. Water lifted out of the river shallows was sufficient for the simple cleansing baptism.
But what of that household? The vital point is that we find out, almost casually, that she had her household there with her. Now as all agree household is synonymous with family. She is the one Paul witnesses to, she is the one who believes, so why are the others nor mentioned, until he find, almost casually, that they were baptised also? If the household family members present had been adults or even somewhat grown children, Paul would certainly have spoken of teaching them also, but in context they are regarded not as individuals but almost as appendages of Lydia herself. Then all becomes clear as daylight. The family household members must have been her infants or small children, too young to be left at home when she went out to prayer. There is simply no other explanation of why they were there, but not addressed or regarded as individuals in their own right. They were simply the offspring (family household) of Lydia.
They were baptised because Lydia was baptised, and she was thus the covenant head present. By her purification (baptism) and entry into the visible covenant and its community, the offspring also entered the visible covenant, and were (without question) given the necessary covenant sign of cleaning.
Although in one way almost incidental, a casual mention of what was an understood given, the record of Acts 16 records an example of child/ infant baptism that is as plain as day. The apostles and early church would have been astounded to hear that in latter days anyone would fail to see this, much less argue against it. The Bible records infant (covenant) baptism here. With this clue other examples are not difficult to find.

READING THE BOOKS OF THE BIBLE IN AN IMPROVED ORDER.

The Bible is not one book, but a library of sixty-six Books, given by inspiration periodically over many hundreds of years. As a library the individual Books can be taken down and read in any order the reader chooses. However, to understand the whole Bible the Books should be read through in as logical an order as possible. There is nothing inspired in the order that the Books are printed in modern Bibles, and that order is quite illogical in parts. For example, there are sixteen Books by Old Testament prophets, but there are not arranged in correct historical order, but merely in descending order of size, from Isaiah (sixty-six Chapters) to the minor prophets (with one to four Chapters each only.) In the New Testament the named Epistles of Paul are arranged in the same way, with the largest (Romans) first, and the smallest (Philemon) last. Luke’s two Books, Gospel and Acts, are separated by John’s Gospel, whilst that Gospel in turn is separated from John’s other works, his three Epistles and the Book of Revelation.
The Old Testament is largely arranged in three sections, broadly following the Jewish pattern, of a) Historical Books, b) the Psalms (with Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and Song of Solomon), and c) the Prophets. There are advantages in this, but it must be kept in mind that the Psalms and other writings, and the prophecies, were written within the period recorded in the histories, and sometimes a prophecy given at one point in the history was fulfilled later in that history. This is a factor underlies what is known as Biblical Theology, for God’s revelation of truth was given progressively over many centuries. That is, doctrines became clearer with successive revelations- but this factor is totally missed when the Books are read out of their historical order, for a more complete teaching may be read before an earlier and less complete one is arrived at.
A balance between the two factors, keeping the different classes of writings (history, Psalms, prophecy) separate, but also in each Testament restoring as near an historical order of Books within each section would be as follows. Reading through the Bible in this order of Books should make the progress of revelation much clearer to the reader.

THE OLD TESTAMENT.

MOSES’S INSPIRED WRITINGS.

GENESIS     (50 chapters)
EXODUS     (40 chapters)
LEVITICUS     (27 chapters)
NUMBERS     (36 chapters)
DEUTERONOMY     (34 chapters)

HISTORICAL INSPIRED WRITINGS

JOSHUA     (24 chapters)
JUDGES     (21 chapters)
RUTH     (4 chapters)
1 SAMUEL     (31 chapters)
2 SAMUEL     (24 chapters)
1 KINGS     (22 chapters)
2 KINGS     (25 chapters)
1 CHRONICLES     (29 chapters)
2 CHRONICLES     (36 chapters)
ESTHER     (10 chapters)
NEHEMIAH     (13 chapters)
EZRA     (10 chapters)

JOB’S INSPIRED WRITING

JOB (42 chapters)

DAVID’S INSPIRED WRITING

PSALMS (150 psalms)

SOLOMON’S INPSIRED WRITINGS

PROVERBS     (31 chapters)
ECCLESIASTES     (12 chapters)
SONG OF SOLOMON     (8 chapters)

PROPHETICAL INSPIRED WRITINGS

JONAH’S PROPHECY     (4 chapters)
JOEL’S PROPHECY     (3 chapters)
AMOS’S PROPHECY     (9 chapters)
HOSEA’S PROPHECY     (14 chapters)
ISAIAH’S PROPHECY     (66 chapters)
MICAH’S PROPHECY     (7 chapters)
NAHUM’S PROPHECY     (3 chapters)
ZEPHANIAH’S PROPHECY     (3 chapters)
JEREMIAH’S PROPHECY     (52 chapters)
JEREMIAH’S LAMENTATIONS     (5 chapters)
HABAKKUK’S PROPHECY     (3 chapters)
OBADIAH’S PROPHECY     (1 chapter)
DANIEL’S PROPHECY     (12 chapters)
EZEKIEL’S PROPHECY     (48 chapters)
HAGGAI’S PROPHECY     (2 chapters)
ZECHARIAH’S PROPHECY     (14 chapters
MALACHI’S PROPHECY (4 chapters)

THE NEW TESTAMENT.

MATTHEW’S INSPIRED WRITING

THE GOSPEL OF JESUS CHRIST ACCORDING TO MATTHEW (28 chapters)

MARK’S INSPIRED WRITING

THE GOSPEL OF JESUS CHRIST ACCORDING TO MARK (16 chapters)

LUKE’S INSPIRED WRITINGS

THE GOSPEL OF JESUS CHRIST ACCORDING TO LUKE (24 chapters)
THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES RECORDED BY LUKE (28 chapters)

PAUL’S INSPIRED WRITINGS

PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS     (5 chapters)
PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS     (3 chapters)
PAUL’S EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS     (6 chapters)
PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS      (16 chapters)
PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS     (13 chapters)
PAUL’S EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS     (16 chapters)
PAUL’S EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS     (4 chapters)
PAUL’S EPISTLE TO PHILEMON     (1 chapter)
PAUL’S EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS     (6 chapters)
PAUL’S EPISTLE TO THE PHILIPPIANS     (4 chapters)
PAUL’S EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS     (13 chapters)
PAUL’S EPISTLE TO TITUS     (3 chapters)
PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY     (6 chapters)
PAUL’S SECOND LETTER TO TIMOTHY     (4 chapters)

JAMES’S INSPIRED WRITING

THE GENERAL EPISTLE OF JAMES (5 chapters)

JUDE’S INSPIRED WRITING

THE GENERAL EPISTLE OF JUDE (1 chapter)

PETER’S INSPIRED WRITINGS

THE FIRST GENERAL EPISTLE OF PETER (5 chapters)
THE SECOND GENERAL EPISTLE OF PETER (3 chapters)

JOHN’S INSPIRED WRITINGS

THE GOSPEL OF JESUS CHRIST ACCORDING TO JOHN     (21 chapters)
THE FIRST GENERAL EPISTLE OF JOHN     (5 chapters)
THE SECOND GENERAL EPISTLE OF JOHN     (1 chapter)
THE THIRD GENERAL EPISTLE OF JOHN     (1 chapter)
THE REVELATION OF JESUS CHRIST GIVEN TO JOHN     (22 chapters)

NOTES:

The Old Testament Prophets: Isaiah received his prophecies at various times over a period of some 60 years. Hosea, Micah, and Nahum all wrote their prophecies WITHIN that period. Ezekiel, Jeremiah, and Daniel also all began their prophecies before the completion of Isaiah. Ezekiel and Daniel wrote in Babylonian exile, Jeremiah in Judah. Some minor prophets wrote at the same time, but in the separate kingdoms of Israel (Northern kingdom ) and Judah (Southern kingdom). Thus Amos and Hosea wrote in Israel (north) and Nahum in Judah (South). Malachi is not the last Book of the Old Testament historically, so there was never a silent gap of 450 years between the end of the Old Testament and beginning of the New Testament (a common mistake). Malachi wrote from about 435 B.C. to 420 B.C. The Second Book of Chronicles carries the history down to about 300 B.C. Malachi is the last prophecy of the Old Testament. Second Chronicles is the last historical Book of the Old Testament, taking things over 100 years nearer New Testament times than Malachi. Theologically, however, it is best to have Malachi as the last Old Testament Book, as it ends with the prophecy of the sending of Elijah to herald the coming of Christ, whilst the New Testament picks up the thread with the ministry of John the Baptist: All the prophets and the law prophesied until John. And if ye will receive it, this is Elias who was for to come (Matthew 11:13-14).
In the New Testament the first three Gospels all cover the same time period, each adding details that others omit., and were all written within a short period of time following the resurrection. The last Gospel, that of John, was written much later, and is a more spiritual one, so is best read in its historical order with the other writings of John. Most of the Epistles were all written in the context of the history of the expansion of the Church given in the Book of Acts (only a few give hints of events after the completion of Acts.) It is important to note that Paul usually followed-up his missionary visits and church planting with letters to the new Churches. When reading Acts and encountering missions to cities such as Corinth, Philippi, Ephesus, and Rome to bear in mind the later Epistles to those cities, and when reading the Epistles to remember the history given in Acts. Just as Malachi is not historically the last Book of the Old Testament, so Revelation is not historically the last written Book of the New Testament. John’s Gospel and John’s three short Epistles were written many years after the Revelation. Again theologically Revelation is best placed last, as it is the last prophecy of the New Testament, and teaches about the future and the return of Christ.

ROMANS 6:4: CHRIST’S BURIAL NO SYMBOL OF BAPTISM.

Taking the King James Bible we read at Romans 6:4: Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death… and at Colossians 2:12: Buried with him in baptism, wherein ye are also risen with him through faith…. Immersionists have long insisted on these verses, claiming that baptism is described in them as a burial (going down into the earth) and a resurrection (being raised up again out of the earth), and so it was long common-place in Immersionist circles to take of their process as a descending and rising again from a watery grave. It has also long been pointed out that, grammatically, the connection is between Christ’s death and the believer by faith, and not with his burial– which is incidental and merely reiterates and emphasises the undoubted fact of his real and actual death. Also it is obvious that the claimed analogy only refers to our modern and Western burial practice- that of lowering the body in a coffin into the earth and filling the grave, and that this was NOT the Jewish practice in Christ’s day, and can in no way have been what Paul had in mind or referred to. The Gospels are explicit that Christ was buried (the Greek word actually says entombed) not by being lowered anywhere but by being carried horizontally into a cave-tomb above ground, with the entrance then sealed. There is no likeness or analogy to dipping and raising anywhere there.
But what is more, and has not been commented on but needs to be stressed, is that Christ’s entombment was not only above ground, but was never intended to be permanent. Putting aside the unique case of Christ, that is that he was to rise again on the third day, no such Jewish burials were intended to be permanent, the final resting place of the deceased. Typically the wrapped corpse would be placed on a ledge of shelf in the wall of the tomb, which would be shut up and sealed to allow the natural process of decomposition to take place. This is exactly what we read of in the case of Lazarus: Jesus …came to the sepulchre, which was cut back into the rock, with a stone sealing the entrance. Jesus said: Take away the stone. Martha, the sister of him who was dead, said to him: Lord, by this time there will be a smell of corruption, for he has been dead four day. (John 11:38-39). That is, that the natural process of decomposition of the corpse had commenced. These sepulchres were not permanent, but actually re-usable. The practice was to wait until sufficient time had passed for the flesh to have all decayed away, then disarticulate and collect the bones, and place them in a small container (usually metal, typically lead), called an Ossuary typically marked with the names and titles of the deceased, and bury or wall-up the container with others. Many such ossuaries have been excavated, and may be seen in museums.
This re-use of the tomb or sepulchre for the first stage of burial for successive corpses explains what is often not noticed: the stress that in Christ’s case the rock-cut tomb with its ledges was brand-new: In the garden a new tomb in which no one was as yet laid (John 19:41). That is: no one had undergone the process of decomposition there. The tomb was in no way unclean by the burial process: it was perfectly pure to rest the incorruptible body of Christ until his glorious resurrection. This is an important point, but one that is totally overlooked by those who are unaware of the current Jewish practice of Christ’s day, or cannot see beyond modern ideas.
What is most clear is that nothing further from immersion cannot be imagined!

COLOSSIANS 3:16, EPHESIANS 5:19 AND UNINSPIRED HYMNS.

It is most naïve to think that non-inspired hymns were at all in use as early as Paul’s letters. When Paul wrote about Psalms, Hymns, and Spiritual Songs in Ephesians 5:19 and Colossians 3:16 he was referring to headings to various Psalms in the Greek Septuagint, where some are called Psalms, some are called Hymns (i.e. worship songs) and some spiritual (i.e. inspired) songs. These Greek titles, the same in the Septuagint and the N.T, reflect similar words for different Psalms in the Hebrew: Psalm, Song, and Hymn. We find that the word Psalm occurs seventy-eight times in the Book of Psalms, the word hymn occurs thirteen times, and the word song forty-five times. The heading of Psalm 75 actually includes all three terms, literally; among the hymns, a psalm for Asaph…a song. All, in Hebrew and in Greek, refer to the Book of Psalms and nothing else. Paul could not possibly have had anything else in mind.
If we speculate as to why Paul mentioned all of the three Greek Psalm headings, rather than just saying sing Psalms we would suggest that he was telling these basically gentile churches to select their sung Psalms from all across the Psalter, and not just choose a few favourite ones. That is a point that all should take on board. Even strict Psalm singing churches can be tempted to select and sing the cheerful Psalms, and avoid the penitential and humbling, and sorrowful ones. God teaches about the whole spiritual experience of the believer, and their relationship to him throughout their spiritual pilgrimage on earth, in the Psalms. They are essential to the individual believer, and in covenant corporate worship and all should be considered and employed. Like David with the sword of Goliath the child of God should say of the Book of Psalms; there is none like that: give it to me!

COLOSSIANS 4:14: THE LAODICEAN EPISTLE AND THE CHURCHES OF THE LYCUS VALLEY.

Much confusion is caused by failure to give sufficient attention to the geography of the early church. This factor is particularly notable in the debates and controversy concerning the so-called Epistle to (or from) Laodicea (Colossians 4:15).
The Meander river has a tributary, the Lycus. In Classical times three cities existed in close proximity to each other in the Lycus valley, Laodicea, Hierapolis, and Colossae. Laodicea and Hierapolis stood on either side of the Lycus, each on rising ground above the river’s flood plain and only about six miles apart: actually within sight of each other. The road between Laodicea and Hierapolis crossed the Lycus, and at that point it was joined by a road to Colossae, which was situated about eleven miles from the road junction. As these cities were such close neighbours it is plain that all could be visited easily in a single day. In that way a letter sent to any of the three could very easily be intended for all three, and circulate effortlessly between them. If first intended for a prime recipient- in this case the church at Colossae- it would apply also to the city churches of Laodicea and Hierapolis. These closely situated churches would, of course, be in constant touch with each other, and their elders would almost certainly meet regularly as what we may call the Lycus Presbytery.
Paul refers to a presbyterial church business letter from Laodicea- a routine and not an inspired letter- and urges that it be considered duly as such inter-congregational maters should be.
Colossae was the smallest of the three cities, but seems to have had the largest and most thriving local church. Archippus appears to have been the moderator of the Colossian church session at this time (4:16), and Epaphras was a prominent member. If Loadicea (and probably Hierapolis) we mission extensions and daughter churches of the stronger Colossae at that time, both the Colossian Epistles being shared with them, and a non-inspired letter requesting advice from Laodicea to the stronger church (especially if they were aware that the Apostle was currently at Colossae) is the most natural and practical thing possible. Thus, on entering the real historic world of the situation, there is really no mystery or problem.

EZRA 3:THE SONS OF HENADAD.

The early Chapters of Ezra list the heads of families who returned from Babylon and who were engaged in rebuilding Jerusalem and the Temple. Ezra 3: 9 lists the sons of Henadad, with their sons, and their brethren the Levites. We meet them again in Nehemiah 3: 18: After him repaired their brethren, Bavai the son of Henadad, the ruler of the half part of Keilah, again in close association with the Levites (verse 17) and in Nehemiah 10:9, once again associated with the Levites: And the Levites; both Jeshua the son of Azaniah, Binnui of the sons of Henadad. We know that in the Hebrew son or sons often means descendants (Christ the son of David and so on.) Why then do we not hear of Henadad before the return from exile? Firstly we need to note that this is not a Jewish name, but a pagan one. Hadad or Adad was a Near-Eastern pagan god. The name forms part of Ben-Hadad, the title of the kings of Syria, and of Hadadezer king of Zobah (2. Samuel Chapter 8). The Jews had been in captivity in Babylon, where Hadad was one of then pagan gods worshipped. The clear implication is thus that Henadad was a Baylonian who was converted to Judaism during the exile, and so he, and his family, were added to Israel. This is why they are not recoded before that time. What is more it appears that the family married into and were allied thereafter with the Levites (note their brethren the Levites). Henadad’s family, now part of Israel, took part in the return to Jerusalem, and the rebuilding effort. It appears that this conversion was so well-known at the time that it is specifically mentioned that the descendants of Henadad were there building. This was probably taken for granted by the Jews at that time, but many centuries later we need a bit of research to put ourselves in the same place. That is how historically accurate and vividly real and the Bible is!

GALATIANS 4: PAUL AND LUKE.

Luke, as we know, was a doctor, the beloved physician (Colossians 4:14). In Galatians 4:13 Paul records a sickness: you know that it was through an infirmity of the flesh that I came to preach the gospel to you at first. Paul proceeded to the sea coast at Troas, where apparently he first encountered Luke. The obvious, but unstated, inference is that Luke the physician was called to attend to Paul, and that this began their association. This also shows that the Apostles could not exercise spiritual gifts at will, but only as the Holy Spirit directed, as Paul could not heal himself, but needed a physician!

GENESIS 17:14: INFANT MEMBERSHIP IN COVENANT AND CHURCH.

The uncircumcised male child, the flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people, he has broken my covenant.
This is serious, and demands serious consideration. In the New Testament baptism bloodlessly fulfils and continues circumcision. It was a divine command that (male) infants of the covenant community (then Jews) be circumcised, and so the law of continuity mandates that infants (now both male and female) of the new Testament covenantal community (the church) be baptised. Baptism signifies their existing covenantal connection to Christ, and thus their place within the covenantal community, now the church, within which they are to grow and mature spiritually and increase in faith and sanctification until they in their turn take on adult roles. Thus the promise to you and your children is not annulled.
We must note carefully, in these circumstances, that in the fulfilment and continuation phase the equivalent must be: The unbaptised child, the flesh of whose forehead has not been washed, that soul shall be cut off from the people. They have broken my covenant. Moreover the uncircumcised (Old Testament) or unbaptised (New Testament) child has itself broken the covenant, even though it is an unconscious infant taking no part in the choice not to apply the covenant seal. Such is the covenant identity of parent and child that it incurs the blame and penalty for what the parents have failed to do. Conversely the circumcised (Old Testament) and baptised (New Testament) receives the covenant benefits and blessings that the faithfulness of the parents procure for it by their obedience. This is a point that seems strange to modern, Western, thinking, and so needs to be carefully pondered and understood.
The text, in its continuation phase, states clearly that believing parents who fail to have their offspring baptised deliberately place that child outside of the covenant of God, outside the church community. The child’s spiritual nurture is seriously harmed and impaired as it has become an alien from the Commonwealth, classed amongst covenant-breakers. Its only hope is, apparently, that of a later adult conversion. All too often excluded children understand that they are placed outside and so that the church is not for them, and so that conversion becomes ever more unlikely.
The evil is caused by Christian parents failing- or refusing- to understand that they are in a position that is radically distinct from that of all other parents. Their children should have been the subject of fervent prayer from proof of conception onwards, and it must be assumed that God will indeed grant elect children to his elect and praying people. Tragically some will later prove to be reprobate covenant-breakers, but it must be understood that such are the exceptions. There is no excuse for born-again Christians thrusting their infants beyond the bounds of the covenant, but that is what the Bible says is done when they refuse to have them baptised.
That is sin, and it is sin of a serious nature. It is also spiritual cruelty of the worst kind to God-given offspring. May this be understood and repented of. Indeed it has to be, if the church is regain its spiritual strength and purity.

GENESIS 45: JOSEPH AND PHARAOH.

To readers of Genesis it may appear strange that Pharaoh so readily promoted Joseph to such high office and power, simply having interpreted Pharaoh’s dream and predicted the coming famine. Thereafter Joseph seems to have been the effective ruler or Prime Minister of Egypt, a sudden promotion and elevation over all the native Egyptian court members for a foreigner brought out of a dungeon. Even given the clear evidence of miraculous knowledge and the highly superstitious nature of Egyptian religion and culture this sudden elevation to almost complete power may seem incredible. There is a possible explanation, as so often included in the Bible but as it were incidentally and not emphasised. Explaining his position in Genesis 45:8 Joseph says that: God…has made me a father to Pharaoh, and lord over all his household, and a ruler though all the land of Egypt.
How often may we read this and not pause to consider what it is saying. God made Joseph a father to Pharaoh. As Joseph was quite young himself when he was elevated to his new position, this must imply that the Pharaoh in question was a boy king, one who came to the throne at a young age. As such he would be very much in need of counsellors, and Joseph’s supernatural knowledge and wisdom would be greatly important to him, whilst Joseph might take on the role of elder brother to him. Joseph’s success in dealing with the famine would, of course, seal his position in the nation, and confirm his influence with Pharaoh. Only when both had aged and passed away could a new Pharaoh arise who knew not Joseph and returned to traditional all-Egyptian rule.
The factor of Joseph’s being a father to Pharaoh, although almost incidentally mentioned later, is an explanation of the suddenness of his rise to power, and the Bible narrative then runs smoothly and logically.

LUKE 16: THE RICH MAN AND LAZARUS.

The parable of the rich man and Lazarus recorded in Luke Chapter sixteen is, of course, very well known. It may be disputed as to whether it is actually a true history, or rather is a typical hypothetical case, as is usual in parables, but the main points taken are, correctly concerning the reality of future rewards and punishments, in light of gracious, sanctified living on earth as indicators of regeneration or reprobation. Many sermons have been delivered on this basis. But one important factor seems to have been overlooked, or at least not usually commented on, so that for most readers the familiar passage flows on without some of the more hidden depths being noticed.
Consider this part of the parable: in Hades the rich man pleads with Abraham, and (verse 27), he said, I pray you therefore, father, that you would send him (Lazarus) to my father’s house where I have five brothers, that he may testify to them, so that they also do not come into this place of torment. Abraham said to him, they have Moses and the prophets, let them hear them. (Luke 16:27-29).
Here is Abraham, living in glory, speaking to the recently deceased rich man. Abraham was born in approximately 2153 B.C., Moses was born in approximately 1728 B.C., and the prophets ranged from circa 650 B.C. until Malachi, around 405 B.C. Therefore Moses’s ministry and inspired writings came three centuries after the life and death of Abraham, and the prophets ranged over centuries after that. What could Abraham know of these men and their inspired writings, men who lived and wrote long after his death? Clearly this: Abraham in heaven was fully aware of events unfolding on earth as the centuries passed, and was fully aware of the writing and importance of the unfolding Bible, and could point to these later events and writings without hesitation.
So we might gather that saints in glory are not only consciously aware of themselves, of others, and of God, but are cognisant with the affairs of the church and of the outworking of the plan of redemption on the earth.
The lesson, beyond the surface and obvious ones, is that the life of saints in glory is not a vague or shadowy thing, but a real, vibrant, intelligent, interactive existence, from the vantage point of infinite bliss and satisfaction.

MATTHEW 11: CHRIST AND JOHN THE BAPTISER.

Matthew 11:11 reads (in the King James Version): Verily I say unto you, Among them that are born of women there hath not arisen a greater than John the Baptist: notwithstanding he that is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.
This is another commonly misunderstood text. Difficult in the Greek, and almost impossible to make clear in another language without some level of addition or paraphrase, it has been the occasion of doctrinal theorising, particularly by dispensationalists. As it stands, although unclear and ambiguous, it has been taught to say that every New Testament saint is superior to John, the last of the Old dispensation saints. Thus there is a clear discontinuity between the Testaments (dispensations) and a down-grading of the Older Testament and its saints.
In fact this is not what the text is saying. The contrast is not at all between John and all New Testament Christians, but actually is a contrast between John and Christ.
Least in the Greek is not is absolutely last, but comparatively lesser. Bearing this in mind we need to consider the whole context of John’s ministry, in relation to that of Christ, who fore-runner and herald John was. The important point here is that John was a hereditary priest. The son of Zechariah of the course of Abia John had priestly standing in the eyes of the Jerusalem hierarchy. This must be remembered, to understand why the Temple authorities did not oppose or prevent John’s baptising/ ritual cleansing mission. However irregular, John had some priestly authority. The Jewish priests considered themselves as holding the keys of the kingdom of heaven, as its administrators on earth.
Now contrast this with the ministry of Christ, that John introduced. In the eyes of the Sanhedrin Jesus had no religious standing. He was emphatically not of the priestly line: For it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Juda: of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood (Hebrews 8:14). Therefore the suspicious religious authorities esteemed or regarded Christ as less then John, lacking the hereditary priestly descent that John had
It then becomes plain that Christ, in Matthew 11:11 is teaching exactly what Paul emphasised later: that he was John’s superior, not least because he had a superior, a better, priesthood. Christ was saying that the Jewish religious authorities, being blinded by tradition, failed to see this, and so regarded the lesser (John) above the greater (Christ.)
To clarify the meaning of the text in English a little expansion, drawn from the above facts (that would have been plain and open to Jews in the first century, but are not so to modern gentiles) we should translate as: Truly I say to you, among those who are born of women there has not arisen one greater the baptiser, but in truth he who is esteemed as lesser in the kingdom of God is greater than he.

THE CONNECTION OF THE PROPHECY OF OBADIAH WITH THAT OF JEREMIAH CHAPTER 49. (KING JAMES VERSION.)

There is a clear verbal connection between Obadiah and Jeremiah at this point. Note:

OBADIAH v.1. We have heard a message from the LORD, and an ambassador is sent among the nations saying, arise ye, and let us rise up against her in battle.
JEREMIAH 49:14. I have heard a report from the LORD, and an ambassador is sent to the heathen, saying, Gather together and come against her, and rise up to the battle.
OBADIAH v.2. Behold, I have made you small among the nations, you are greatly despised.
JEREMIAH 49:15. For I will make you small among the heathen, and despised among men.
OBADIAH vs. 3-4. The pride of your heart has deceived you, you who dwells in the clefts of the rock, whose habitation is on high: who says in your heart, who shall bring me down to the ground? Though you exalt yourself as the eagle, and though you set thy nest among the stars, yet I will bring you down, says the LORD.
JEREMIAH 49:16. Your terribleness and the pride of your heart, has deceived you, O you who dwells in the clefs of the rocks, who holds the heights of the hills. Thou you make your nest as high as the eagles, I will bring thee down from there, says the LORD.
OBADIAH v. 5 If thieves came to thee, if robbers came by night, although you live in isolation, would they not have stolen only until they had enough? If the grape gatherers came to you, would they not leave some grapes?
JEREMIAH 49: 9. If grape gatherers come to you, would they not leave some gleaning grapes? If thieves come by night they will destroy until they have enough.
OBADIAH v. 6. How are the things of Edom searched out! How are his hidden things brought out!
JEREMIAH 49: 10. I have made Esau bare, I have uncovered his secret places, and he shall not be able to hide himself.
OBADIAH v. 8. Shall I not in that day, says the LORD, destroy the wise men out of Edom, and understanding ones out of the mount of Esau?
JEREMIAH 49:7 Thus says the LORD of hosts Concerning Edom: Is there no more wisdom in Teman? Has counsel perished from the prudent? Is their wisdom vanished?

REVELATION 3:20: CHRIST STANDING AND KNOCKING.

Revelation 3:20 is not only one of the most misunderstood texts in the Bible, but is also about the most misused. In the King James we have: Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.
This so abused verse, looked at in context, has nothing to do with conversion from sin or salvation. It is not spoken to individuals (again we see the prevailing Western fascination with individuality, where the Bible, with its Hebrew basis, speaks jointly or covenantally), but to a Church, that at Laodicea. This is not what the Spirit says to an unrepentant sinner, but emphatically what the Spirit says to the churches. There are many conversion texts in the Bible. This is not one of them. Perverting it to be so has caused no end of confusion. It is addressed to a church, and through that local church to all churches. Churches must be assumed to have a majority of saved members. The message, and its warning, is addressed to believers within a professing church. The context of the Laodicean message is not man-oriented (individual salvation) but God oriented, specifically concerning Christ’s return in judgment. That return would be initially, invisibly, and typologically in the siege and destruction of Jerusalem in 70.A.D. (Revelation can only be interpreted properly when understood to have been written before that even), and secondarily, visibly and in anti-type in the final day of universal judgement to come. Behold, I stand at the door, and knock is a parallel to: So likewise ye, when ye shall see all these things, know that it is near, even at the doors (Matthew 24:33), So ye in like manner, when ye shall see these things come to pass, know that it is night, even at the doors (Mark 13:29). Laodicea’s problem lay with the apparent delay in the Lord’s coming. They needed to be reminded that The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness: but is longsuffering to us-ward (2. Peter 3:9). Like the church at Thessalonica they were puzzled by this delay and they had lost their first love and zeal, and become neither hot nor cold. Christ reminds them that although there was still a short delay, yet he was outside the door, soon to return. To hear his voice and open the door is thus to restore faith in his soon coming and once again to eagerly look forward to it, yearning to welcome him. Christ’s return, firstly in breaking up the Jewish polity and freeing the gospel to go worldwide, and later in the general judgement unites Christ with his bride, the church, to sup with him forever.
There is another aspect in which this text may be viewed, more truths to be gleaned from it, in terms of practical application whilst the church awaits the return of her Lord.
As we have seen Christ is speaking here to a Church (at Laodicea), not to the world, certainly not to the unsaved in general. Further, we must keep in mind that when God speaks of the church he speaks only of the true spiritual church, that is the church invisible, comprised of true believers and their covenant seed, not the whole external professing visible church. So the text is addressed to those already genuinely saved (and so is nothing to do with evangelising the unsaved.)
What, then, was Christ saying to the believers at Laodicea (and, by extension, to all churches since)? He was addressing a problem, and that problem was lukewarmness, it was backsliding. Only true Christians can backslide, only true Christians may cool from their first love to Christ, only true Christians may be rebuked and reminded for such lapses. The whole context rules out the evangelising twisting of the text.
Sinners clearly cannot open any doors to Christ: they are dead in trespasses and sins. Here the believers can open a door, and are admonished to do so. As this cannot be salvation (that they already have) what can it be?
Here is where the Arminian does Christ a huge disservice, and also denies the believer and the Church a vital, a blessed truth. The main thrust of this text concerns Christ’s great love to his saints. The believing church at Laodicea has slipped back from their first love, had become cold, and were thus keeping Christ as it were at a distance. Now this is indeed the very situation of the typical evangelical church in the Western world today. Whilst many members are indeed born again, yet corporately there is a comfort zone in which the church does many things in its own way, choses its own plans, even worships according to its own devising and in ways to please its people, does all in the name of Christ, even repeatedly naming his name, and yet holding him at a distance. Christ is saying that his love provides an intimate association, supping with him, but coldness has closed the door to this very close and loving interaction. Those believers awakened to this are invited to open the door again, and enjoy the immense benefit of the very closest and most loving fellowship with their Redeemer.
This wonderful truth of Christ’s sharing and intimate continuing love to his elect is written out of the Bible, by the common man-centred perversion of Revelation 3:20. This has done immense harm, over all the ages in which the church exits and witnesses on earth, and looks forward to her Redeemer’s return. May the elect truly wake up to this, and keep the doors of their hearts fully open to close communion with the invisible Christ, as a blessed foretaste of his visible presence to come!

UNDERSTANDING THE OLIVET DISCOURSE.

Readers and Commentators alike have long experienced great perplexity over aspects of the Olivet Discourse recorded in Matthew24, Luke 21, and Mark 13*.
The narrative is, however, an important one to understand correctly: a factor that is strongly underlined by its being given at length in all three synoptic gospels (A threefold cord is not easily broken Ecclesiastes 3:12).
The scene in a vivid one. Christ and his closest disciples are on the Mount of Olives, with Jerusalem in plain view. In his divine nature Christ is fully aware of the future, as much as of the present, and the approaching downfall and destruction of the great city is clearly before his mind, and he begins to unfold this to his disciples. They then enquired of him: What shall be the sign of your coming, and of the end of the world (age)? (Matthew 24:3). This has long been the stumbling block: is this one question about one event, or is it a combined question concerning two distinct events? Would these events occur simultaneously, or ages apart?
Looking at the whole context it is plain that much refers to the then not-too-distant downfall of the Jewish state and polity and the destruction of the Temple by the Romans in A.D. 70, but other things seem to describe Christ’s final return as judge of all things (the mis-called second coming) which is still in the future. The problem has long been one of dividing between these two factors. Where does one end and the other begin? And where is the indication of a great lacuna in time between them? Much ink has been spilled over these issues, and many schemes have been proposed. In fact to most Commentators it almost seems that the disciples are to be blamed for combining in one question things that now are quite sure should have been kept distinct, and that we might instead have had two separate and unambiguous answers as to: 1) Christ’s soon coming to overthrow apostate Judaism, and, 2) His far distant (to them) final return to bring this world to an end and institute the overall day of Judgment. In fact this is all a man-made difficulty, that would not have occurred to the original disciples, who made no error in placing these two factors together in one question. The key to understanding the discourse (in the way that they undoubtedly did) actually lies in plain sight.
In fact there is no division of subjects here, but a prophecy and description of one event, which was to occur in two phases. It was one question, because it was about the same thing. An embryo in the womb is the same entity as the later new-born baby. It is the same person, first in a preparation, and later in a fulfilment phase. The unborn baby in the womb lies in a closed environment, protected until it arrives at full term maturity. This preparatory phase is the Jewish Old Testament. The limitation of God’s people to the Jews (with some additions) was this gestation period of the faith: a closed and secure environment in which the church was nurtured, nourished and protected and kept from contamination, especially so as to preserve pure the genetic line in which Messiah was to come to earth. When the fullness of time was accomplished Christ entered the world, suffered and died his atoning death- and then the faith broke out of its Jewish womb and moved out into the entire world.
This is a vital Bible principle: one that provides a ready key to understanding much of the Scriptures. There is a constant and underlying thread of preparation followed by the same in fulfilment. This is typically unfolded in the form of type and antitype, within a pattern of a) the more tangible and visible, and, b) the less visible and more spiritual. The former is usually more limited as to space and time, the latter more wide-ranging and even eternal, but note that in all cases it is the same thing, occurring over two interconnected phases.
Returning more specifically to the Olivet Discourse we see that the disciples’ question was in fact perfectly correctly phrased. Christ’s coming to overthrow apostate Judaism in A.D. 70 was the first and typical phase of his judgment work, the later and antitypical phase his future return to be the Judge of all things. The historical events surrounding the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans should be viewed as the type that will be fulfilled on a global, but spiritual rather than carnal, level as that event approaches.
Type and antitype, preparation and fulfilment, worldly and limited and spiritual and permanent: a progression through the one to the other: this is the Biblical pattern. Once this is clearly understood man-made philosophical difficulties dissolve away.

* John’s gospel, written later than the synoptics, does not include the Olivet Discourse. The reason for this is clear: John provides, under divine inspiration, a far more detailed description of the same interconnected events in the Book of Revelation. The difference is that John’s gospel was penned after the fall of Jerusalem, and so when the first phase of the Coming had taken place,